Saturday, March 3, 2012

FALL-GUY PRIESTS

It is an unfortunate fact that we live in an age when the priesthood is under assault like never before. Nowhere is that assault more visible than in the culture war of homosexuality.

Homosexuals have made great gains in their quest of acceptance by using the courtroom and cloaking themselves in the mantle of Civil Rights. However, mere acceptance is not enough. Militant homosexuals will accept nothing less than unconditional approval from all sectors of society and will stop at nothing to destroy anyone who stands in their way. There is apparently a three-pronged attack on the priesthood, orchestrated by militant homosexuals and almost transparent in its obviousness for those who take the trouble to look beyond the headlines.

PRONG #1: INFILTRATE AND DISCREDIT

THE PRIESTHOOD

It is hard to find any diocese in the United States that does not have a significant number of homosexual priests. However, we must be careful not to assume a priest is homosexual simply because he is soft-spoken, effeminate or has "that look". There are many effeminate men in this world who are perfectly normal in their sexual proclivities (think Brian Eno).

However, it cannot be denied that, generally, priests as a group are much more effeminate than they were two generations ago. In his book, Goodbye Good Men, author Michael Rose documents well how dioceses and seminaries across the country have been dominated by homosexuals for at least two decades.

Does this mean homosexuals are automatically bad people? No. What it means is that a homosexual priest is far less likely to freely teach what the Church teaches about human sexuality and other moral issues, because doing so would be a contradiction to his instincts (and, sometimes, lifestyle). So to change the way the Church teaches, homosexuals have attempted to infiltrate and take over the priesthood. They have been very effective.

PRONG #2: USE THE SULLIED REPUTATION OF THE PRIESTHOOD TO ATTACK PRIESTS

The result of the infiltration of the priesthood has been a sexual abuse crisis the likes of which Christianity has never seen before. The crisis, unearthed to the public at large in 2002, was so widespread that the USCCB commissioned a special study by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. After finding that the report did not tell them what they wanted to hear, its findings have been downplayed: The majority of victims were adolescent males (translation: The offending priests were homosexuals).

Thanks to the homosexual infiltration of the priesthood, we have spent billions of dollars in settlements, had the unprecedented event of states lifting the statute of limitations on sex abuse cases (only in cases involving the Catholic Church, of course) and a new class of attorneys making a career out of suing dioceses.

If that's not enough, now whenever there is any story of any controversy surrounding a priest or bishop, you can count on at least one letter to the editor that begins like this:

"What do you expect from a closeted Church run by a bunch of child molesters..."

PRONG #3: USE THE "CIVIL RIGHTS" ARGUMENT

TO DISCREDIT AND REMOVE PRIESTS

WHO UPHOLD CHURCH TEACHING

Finally, now that the priesthood is under the cloud of suspicion that homosexuals themselves created for the Church, their final target is the true believers, the priests who refuse to be timid in their practice of teaching the Church and defending Her honor. Thankfully, less than 2 percent of all ordained priests have been involved with sexual abuse and there are still priests among us who teach the dogmas of the faith without compromise. As soon as a homosexual learns of one, the setup begins. These priests have to go. They not only have to go, they have to be disgraced as hate-filled bigots. And it's not hard to do, since most Catholics have been lulled to sleep with candy-coated religion for almost four decades now. Instead of defending these good priests, the average Catholic in the pew will join their voices with the Gay Lobby. Which brings us to our first Fall-Guy Priest:

Father Marcel Guarnizo

Father Guarnizo, as you probably know by now, officiated at a funeral Mass in the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. last week, where he denied Communion to lesbian Barbara Johnson. Johnson claims that Fr. Guarnizo refused her Communion after learning just before the service about her lesbian relationship with her partner. However, it's not quite so simple as just a refusal of Holy Communion because of Johnson's sexual orientation. Canonists and hair-splitters are denouncing Fr. Guarnizo's actions because they insist he did not properly apply Canon 915, specifically, he did not discuss her gravely sinful and public situation with her and give her ample opportunity to repent (and go to Confession). In Barbara Johnson's case, true repentance would mean ending her lesbian "lifestyle" and no longer co-habitating with a woman she publicly boasts of as her lover. However, they were apparently not the only ones in the sacristy before Mass. A commenter on Deacon Greg Kandras' blog wrote this:

I happen to know “First hand” that Barbara went into the sacristy before the mass and introduced herself as a lesbian in an active lesbian relationship… introducing her partner as “her lover” (her words). She left the sacristy before Fr. could have the “private discussion” you talk about. Barbaras “Lover” blocked his way out of the sacristy when he attempted to speak with her further.

This testimony is also confirmed by Diego von Stauffenberg in a story at LifeSite News.

So it appears that Fr. Guarnizo was put in a very difficult position. He made a "battlefield decision" to protect the Blessed Sacrament from being profaned and the results are obvious: The Gay community is calling for his head. If this woman was raised Catholic, then she surely knew that her lifestyle is a polar opposite of what is permitted by the Catholic Church. Given her age, she may never have been taught that you must not receive Communion if you are in a state of mortal sin. Instead she is throwing around words like "judgmental" and milking this for everything she can. And it's worked. Instead of defending their priest, The Archdiocese of Washington has already issued a public apology. But Barbara Johnson is a mere pawn in a larger game. The Gay community cannot stand it that priests like this are permitted to minister in the Catholic Church and they will not rest until these kind of priests are eliminated. Don't be surprised if some sanction against Fr. Guarnizo follows.

Father Solcia has been an associate pastor at Our Lady of the Rosary Catholic Church in San Diego since 1992. OLR is designated an Italian National Parish, which gives it some limited independence from the Diocese of San Diego and has been staffed by Barnabite (Clerks Regular of St. Paul) priests for many years. Fr. Solcia himself has a reputation of not mincing words, and this has been noted by San Diego's Gay community, since he is one of very few priests in the diocese to denounce the annual Gay Pride festival.

Their opportunity came in June of 2011 when prominent homosexual John Sanfilippo died. His family had been members of the parish and the surviving members allegedly arranged for a funeral Mass at OLR. However, the parish later informed the family that they could not permit a funeral Mass at the parish because of Sanfilippo's notoriety as an unrepentant homosexual. The Gay community lost no time in running to the media to complain. No fool he, Fr. Solcia told the congregation at one of his Masses later that week that the parish had been "set up". And he was right. However, this only fueled the fire, leaving the Diocese of San Diego trembling to appease the rage in its Gay community. The appeasement came in the form of a funeral Mass held at the chapel of Holy Cross Catholic cemetery. Fr. Solcia has been their target ever since, however, declining health has kept him out of the public eye.

The mainstream media neglected to mention more details about the funeral "refusal": Sanfilippo was the owner of a popular gay bar and had divorced his wife years before. While the gay media described him as a "devout" Catholic, he had not been active in OLR parish for years. It was his gay lover, not his "family" who approached OLR for a funeral Mass. He was not refused a Mass, but told that no Communion would be distributed to protect the Blessed Sacrament from being profaned.

And that's not a setup?

Father Joseph Baca

Father Joe Baca was ordained a priest for the Diocese of Fresno, California in 2001 after jumping around seminaries. One seminary, St. John's in Camarillo, sent him away three times. They didn't like his attitude. He didn't like their lack of orthodoxy and open homosexuality. After his ordination he served as an assistant at a few parishes before landing in St. Patrick's parish in Merced, California in 2003. Fr. Baca's presence quickly separated the Catholics from the rest of the crowd. He was drawing record numbers of people to his religious education classes and was the subject of critical letters to the diocese for his orthodox teaching and strict liturgical observances.

His pastor, Fr. Lastiri, was frequently away. While Fr. Lastiri was on one of his trips in Tahiti, Fr. Baca raised the ire of the person who was really running the parish, administrator Jean Smith. After Smith complained to Fr. Lastiri about Fr. Baca, Fr. Lastiri wrote Bishop Steinbock, asking for Fr. Baca's dismissal because of his "anger problems". Fr. Baca was removed and given no new assignment, and instructed to attend a facility for anger management training.

It's always easy to blame the bishop for not supporting the priest in these cases, but Bishop Steinbock knew enough about his diocese to realize that the kind of priests he was stuck with would never welcome Fr. Baca back. Fr. Baca visited Bishop Steinbock in the hospital before his death in 2010 and he told Fr. Baca that he had no choice but to suspend him, since there was no pastor in the diocese that would accept him. Keep in mind, this is the same diocese that gave us Fr. Geoff Farrow, the homosexual priest who came out about his sexual identity and his support of homosexual marriage at a public Mass on Respect Life Sunday in 2008.

The prospects for the Diocese of Fresno may not be much better now, since their new bishop is Armando Ochoa, formerly the Bishop of El Paso. Bishop Ochoa is one of many bishops whose career path was nurtured by Cardinal Mahony. And, in case you've forgotten, Bishop Ochoa wasted no time in his handling of Fall-Guy Priest #4...

Father Michael Rodriguez

Fr. Rodriguez had two strikes against him in the first place: He was devoted to Tradition with a capital T and took advantage of Summorum Pontificum's liberation of the Traditional Latin Mass as far as any priest could. If that wasn't enough, he also became a very public voice in leading the opposition to El Paso politicians who supported homosexual marriage. Not exactly the way to endear yourself to a protege of Cardinal Mahony.

In October of 2011, Bishop Ochoa transferred the popular priest from his thriving El Paso parish and sent him packing to an obscure little church four hours south in Big Bend country near the Mexican border.

If that wasn't enough, Bishop Ochoa is suing Fr. Rodriguez for allegedly mishandling finances. For his part, Fr. Rodriguez insists that transfers are just a part of being a priest and he has accepted his new assignment with stoic indifference. As for the lawsuit, Fr. Rodriguez says he has nothing to hide and is preparing to make a vigorous defense, should it make it to the courtroom.

Fr. James Haley

Father James Haley should be the poster boy for Fall Guy Priests. Unfortunately, there is no picture available to put on the poster.

Fr. Haley had been bumped from parish to parish in the Diocese of Arlington, Virginia since his ordination in 1987. It seems that everywhere he went, the underground homosexual (and heterosexual) activity of unchaste priests made life increasingly difficult for him. His previous Bishop, John Keating, sympathized but did nothing. His succesor, Bishop Paul Loverde did do something, but not to any of the offending priests.

49 comments:

A few years ago, I read a comment by an Orthodox priest who said this debate about denying Communion in the Roman Catholic Church is baffling from an Orthodox perspective *because in the Orthodox Church, you don't receive Communion unless you get the priest's permission, period*.

Father Marcel Guarnizo has brought to the forefront the Churches teaching regarding a homosexual relationship and the sacraments. God bless him and give him the strength to endure the fall out for speaking the truth.

This dissing of good priests will only come to an end in this country when the orthodox laity start withholding their money and informing the bishops they will no longer tolerate queers, socialists and other deviants in RRoman collars.

A great post, save the very last one. You lack the facts about the case. The reason Father Haley was suspended was because he was impatient and went to the MEDIA with what he knew instead of allowing the police and the diocese sort out the bad priests. He, because of his own pride violated his vow of obedience to his Bishop who instructed him explicitly not to go to the Press with what he knew.

Fr. Hayley, as far as I know (this is unconfirmed btw), lives in a trailer in the outskirts of Northern VA. He is no longer looking for attention and is very likely waiting to see if he will ever be reinstated. He is supported, I believe, by his family and close friends. I know nothing else though.

I was a parishioner in the diocese at the time of Fr. Haley's castigation by Bishop Loverde. Fr. Haley was not suspended and refused to be incardinated in another diocese because he went to the public. He was punished by Bishop Loverde because under oath in a grand jury investigation into the wrongdoings of one of the priests, Fr. Haley had the misfortune of having to be in his parish, Fr Haley revealed that Bishop Loverde was a blatant homosexual who had a lover that he brought from New York. When Bishop Loverde came to the Arlington Diocese he kicked the nuns out of their covent so his lover could live there. Fr. Haley has brought a case against Loverde to the Vatican. At this time I am not sure where this case lies.

As far as the claim the diocese was interested in rooting out the bad priests, I am sorry but you live in a dream world. Every parish Fr. Haley was assigned to there was serious wrongdoings, from pornography, embezzlement, to impregnating a wife and mother of four children and having a very open affair in front of parishioners. Nothing was ever done with these priests, or it was a slap on the wrist. Fr. Haley brought all of this to Loverde before anything became public and Loverde punished him. So far as going public if you call being subpoened to testify in court about one of these priest in which privately you had went to the Bishop about previously to put a stop to it, then you are very confused about right and wrong. God will give us the chance in private to get rid of the evils in our lives. But if we ignore that HE will expose us to the public for which we will be a laughingstock (This theme is constant throughout the Old Testament). Hopefully then there will be repentance and an actually cleansing of the situation. Unfortunataly this is not happening. In fact Loverde's response to all of this was to say that parents are the abusers of children and now we will give sex education to the children behind closed doors no parents allowed thank you. I am very glad I am not a parishioner of that diocese anymore. Open predation of my children by my Church is not what I am interested in thank you. God protect us!

And another aside If you think the police will help you in your dealings with the Church think again. We had the experience of trying to get a priest to tell us what he knew about the sexual predation of my stepdaughter by one of his parishioners. The information that was brought up was not through the confessional. Well, you would have thought we were accusing Jesus, Our Lord, of wrongdoing. Priests are untouchable. And time and again it is brought to the public's attention that the police and courts are complicit with the Church in covering up the horrible evils that are going on in the Church. I am surprised that any convictions have come about. God have mercy on the faithful.

Mr. Locke, do you have any particular evidence to substantiate your claims? Considering that I don't know Fr. Hayley any more than I know you, I can't automatically tell if he's a cretin or a cross-bearer. I DO know that one of the linked articles tends to corroborate the view proposed by the author.I might comment that, if a person attempts to avoid testifying and/or refuses to answer to a subpoena, the legal consequences for that person AND his supervisor can rapidly become..more trouble than if he'd simply testify in the first place.

There is no such thing as a legitimate vocation to the priesthood for a sodomite; That is, God does not call to be an alter Christus he who is mired in that sinkhole of perversity and the refusal of Holy Mother Church to promulgate legislation banning every single homosexual from the Seminary ensures that innocent young men in the future will continue to be criminally sexually assaulted by these perverted predatory priests.

What a lot of people both in and out of the Church forget is that Blessed John XIII put out a document back in 1961 that no homosexual inclined men were NOT to be ordained to the active priesthood. Sadly, this important teaching was not followed since John died, because I guess during and after the Council thought the Priesthood was a RIGHT and anybody (including married men, women, and homosexual men were all to be ordained in the name of "inclusion" which is "political Correctness"-aka. CULTURAL COMMUNISM- its real name.

First of all let me say that this is an excellent article that perfectly describes what has, is and will happen to many good Priests. Politics!

I will say that I personally know no less than 3 Priests here in South Carolina that have experienced the exact same treatment. As a matter of fact we lay people coined a phrase after one of the Priests who was fed to the wolves. It is called being "Dilleyed" out of the Diocese, after Fr. Gary Dilley. Talk about destroying a good Priest! There are many other examples out there 2 that I know since Fr. Dilley, who were run off with a stick for being faithful, and traditional. It is so sad to see the Church do this to good Priests.

Maybe you could research and write a piece on how to counter this problem from the pews. That would be an eye opener for sure. God bless these good Priests and God save us all, especially our Bishops.

I for one am willing to donate to the "Mylar Back Brace Fund" for our American bishops. Probably would be better spent than the CCHD money eh?

PRAY FOR OUR PRIESTS. DAILY!!!!!!!!!!! Support your priest - especially if he is a good and holy priest. "Good homily, Father" after Mass on Sunday isn't enough. Pray for him daily. Offer penances for him. If you have children, invite them to put together a spiritual bouquet and give it to your priest. Pray for our Church. Fast and pray and fast some more. If we are unahppy with our priests it is because we haven't been praying enough. What has been allowed to happen is a disgrace, but we need to fall prostrate before our Lord and beg his mercy and divine help.Less talk, more prayer.

Not for nothing, but while Michael Rose's book is good, it is nothing compared to Randy Engel's "Rite of Sodomy". The saddest thing is that since this all broke in 2001, not much has changed.The Church makes me ill. Some days it is hard for me to truly believe that it is truly the Church established by Jesus Christ.

The Catholic Church remains the Church established by Jesus Christ. The Church is made up of fallible human beings who sin. Don't blame the Church. We have so many good priests who try to lead the people to God, who outweigh the ones who are leading the people away. We had a priest who stressed that confession wasn't really necessary (we know that it isn't demanded, but it is necessary to confess our sins.) How many are there that never go to Confession even though Out Lady has stressed the importance of going once a month. How many are condoning contraception and abortion, etc., not because it is what the Church teaches, but what many fallible human beings have said is all right.

This article is really sad and depressing to read. What does the future hold for the Church? I pray all the time for an orthodox clergy, maybe someday my prayers will be answered. How can bishops and their fellow priests stand by and just let the faith be trampled like this? I am not a priest, but when I was younger I considered it, I remember having many discussions with my liberal Jesuit u8ncle and he couldn't understand how I could be so orthodox. I can't understand how a priest can be so liberal!

I was seriously abused by a priest and he was not gay. I know others, male and female - survivors, abused by clerics who were not gay.

It's an insult to we survivors that you morons scapegoat gay people for the abuses of sick priests. And the sicker 'hierarchy' who cover it up.

I want to tell you, not that you will listen, or that any of you actually give one continental damn about truth/reality anyway - scapegoating is not the answer, helps no one, least of all your own children, innocent souls, and vulnerable adult men and women who have been preyed upon and will be again, thanks to your DIS HONESTY !!!

I want to remain with the Church - the Faith given me by my parents. God alone knows how I have tried to hold on - the challenges and threats even I faced in trying to remain. I have been through more than you people can possibly imagine.

You are not helping - not in any way being supportive of those of us who survive, and I personally know of four others who are dead.

CUT THE CRAP and get REAL !!!

If I read much more of this bullshit I will leave the RCC behind, once and for all and never look back.

The sexually abusing priest and the hierarchs who cover up have not managed to drive me away. But you people and your boundless denial and dishonesty will succeed in finishing what they all started.

Mark, What faith you have been gifted with! Your Parents taught you well. Our Lady will not let you down. We must continue to pray for the sexually abusing priest and for the sicker 'hierarchy' who cover it up. They will have to answer to God for their actions. I will pray for you daily that you remain faithful to our Catholic Church and that Our Lady continue to wrap you in Her loving arms. May God continue to Bless You !!!sc

First of all, I am very, very sorry for the pain that has been caused to you by the priest who harmed you. Your post almost glows with the pain you are experiencing.

Second of all, I did not say that ALL of the abusing priests were homosexuals. I said the MAJORITY were homosexuals. When an adult man performs a sex act with an adolescent male, that is not pedophilia, it is homosexuality, and, as some will get even MORE specific, something called ephebophilia.

The John Jay Report found that of 10, 293 reported cases, 1,924 of the victims were females, while a whopping 8,369 were male. Further of those male victims, 4,282 were 11-14 years of age and the second largest group, 2,892 were 15-17 years old. Those are the cold hard numbers. That doesn't mean that there were not priests who were pure pedophiles, but they were in the minority. You haven't told us much about the priest who abused you or even what YOUR gender is, but it doesn't matter for two reasons. 1) Abuse is abuse and no matter who you are or who did it to you, it was wrong and my heart goes out to you for your suffering. 2) The point of this discussion was that the overwhelming MAJORITY of priests who committed sexual abuse were homosexuals.

Do I believe there was a deliberate attempt by some conspiracy of homosexuals to infiltrate the priesthood? Not in so many words. However it is more than obvious and well documented that those running many of the major seminaries ended up being homosexuals or, at very least having a bias for homosexual candidates as well as a contempt for orthodoxy. And we have paid the price for it.

I am not sure what you want to hear from me or anyone posting here that would make you feel more "supported" as a survivor. I am as disgusted by the sexual abuse of priests as anyone and have spent a good bit of my life fighting against it. Perhaps you could specify what kind of "crap" it is that you wish for us to "cut" in order to "get real".

If you mean supporting SNAP, I cannot, in good conscience give any credence to them. They profess concern for the victims, but their real objectives seem to be winning lawsuits. There is not one bishop in America that they approve of and they have taken too many public positions that display an open disregard of orthodoxy and tradition. In short, I find SNAP to be anti-Catholic, or, at very least, desirous of changing the Catholic Church into some sort of quasi-democracy that would never work. For more on that, just see how successful "Protestantism" is.

I am not seeking to "scapegoat" homosexuals. Homosexual people are human beings deserving of compassion and courtesy. So are alcoholics and compulsive gamblers. I don't care if they are "born" that way or "develop" homosexual desires--it's irrelevant. Homosexuals have an immortal soul made for eternity with God and tormented with their own particular temptations in the struggle to overcome our fallen nature. We are all in this together. However, that does not change the fact that Catholics cannot sanction homosexual marriage. And if you get back to the story that prompted this in the first place, I find it terribly ironic that Barbara Johnson accused Father Guarnizo of "bringing his politics" into the church, when she clearly brought hers into the sacristy as part of his set-up. She may have triumphed in this world. She will surely answer for it in the next. May God have mercy on her, on you and on us all.

I find it disgusting how good priests are treated this manner. Those homosexual priests, bishops, cardinals better repent or hell will be their everlasting destiny. This corruption must stop now or risk God's wrath!

The bottom line in all of this and in everything that is happening to the Catholic church these days, is the foretold, persecution of the church. This the the beginning of it. But remember, "THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT". Praise God !

I agree! With all that is going on, we have to remember to HANG ON! Things will get worse before they get better. We can't let go of our faith and we can't take our eyes of Jesus! Hold on tightly and don't avert your eyes!

I can affirm that St. John's Seminary in Camarillo (Archdiocese of Los Angeles) has been a center of homosexuality for decades. In the early 1980's I was in a diocesan 1 year seminary formation program and made a couple trips to the seminary. I was disgusted by what I saw - it was a gay fraternity. This seminary has polluted most of the California dioceses. After leaving this diocesan formation program, I entered religious life but left after just two years - 6 of the 7 movices were active homosexuals and this was not even considered one of the "liberal" religious orders. The shame and scandal in the Roman church today! It is heartbreaking.

As a devoted Catholic I am throughly disgusted by clerical heirarchy who keep 'throwing good and faithful priests under the bus.' Not to mention fellow priests who turn on their friends and co-workers. I have seen it and it stinks!

Rome should have a special commision to investigate priests who are being harrased in their own dioceses. What a sad and pitful organization we have become!

We don't need to be persecued from the outside, we are doing a great job from within.

I would not say there is a conspiracy among the secular homosexuals to undermine the Church during the last half century or so, I would say they were only taking advantage of pre-existing conditions in the Church. People want to pretend that active homosexuality in the priesthood is a product of the 20th century and limited to homosexual conspiracies in places like America, Ireland and maybe a few others. Well all I can say is you ought to check out St Peter Damian's letter to Pope Leo IX (aka the Book of Gomorrah) along with Leo's response. The letter and the response were written in the year 1049, yes that's right, not that far from 1000 years ago; and it sent shock waves through the Church of that time. Interesting bit of history...

Out of evil can come good: the Church has a nearly unprecedented opportunity to turn the corner, to root out the sexually active priests if they are really and truly serious about it this time. That this battle is costing innocent lives is truly regrettable, but the eye must be kept on the prize, that is to bring the Church closer to God. It will not be easy, the presence of gays among the bishops will likely take another generation to eradicate.

then there are the orthodox priests who quietly get sent away with no explanation-just a letter from the archiocese that they are not needed anymore...no reason, no thank you for your service, even though there is a priest shortage in the diocese. I know of at least three...

Uh...Mark. News for ya, bud. Male on male sex is Homosexual. No gettin' around it, dude.

Do you pray for the "gay" priest who abused you? That is the biggest thing missing from the victim camp. I have yet to hear even one say they have forgiven their abuser. Without it, they get no sympathy from me.

SNAP is just another antiChrist, antiCatholic entity who simply has a lust for hatred. And money.

The Church should diminish or, worse, dismiss her teachings and tenets for the sake of political expediency? The Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord should be desecrated in order to spare the feelings of a contumacious lesbian? Of a Buddhist, who, by definition, is forbidden to receive Holy Communion?

The Bride of Christ has been in a state of collapse since and because of the egregious Second Vatican Council. Among a host (pun intended) of disasters has been the almost complete abandonment of Church discipline and governance. Father Marcel Guarnizo is a rare exception to the systemic poltroonery, and I applaud his courageous and uncompromising defense of and commitment to Holy Mother Church.

Aside from the fact that homosexuality and pedophilia are NOT the same things (though a lot of people can't make the distinction), is it worth pointing out that Barbara Johnson is a Buddhist and has so identified herself for some years, apparently, so she could not have received Communion anyway.

I was sexually abused by an older friend of the family when I was 10. I told no one but decided he was a sick man, even though he was a prominent attorney and Bank Board member. Several years later I forgave him (in my heart) and still pray for his soul decades later. Until SNAP does the same, I feel they need prayer and to stop indulging in being victims. I am at peace and wish others could be too. Jesus gave us the Lord's prayer to show us we must forgive and it could not be more true.

In Pope Benedict's book Faith and the Future, he says the Church will shrink, become less powerful in the world but it will then become the haven of the true believer who will find in it Catholics who truly accept and practice its doctrines and sacraments, to the salvation of their souls.

The Church must support and encourage this good priest. To do otherwise is to be used and abused by the Gay community who desire to use this incident politically. It is deliberate and false compassion by the American Church undermines the Church Universal and all it stands for. It seems the archdiocese is being played by the LGBT agenda very effectively if they deny Father's correct upholding of the doctrines on Communion.

Whether this is totally correct or not, it is a sad report. Our Cardinals, Bishops and Priests are our Shepherds and are falling into the trap set by satan. I agree WE need to pray fervently for our priests, our shepherds. This Truely saddends me, I can't imagine what it's doing to Christ Our Lord and Savior,and our Blessed Mother Mary. The end times are near everyone should repent and change their ways. For we will be judged by the Just Judge. And Woe to you if you have not repented and follow the the Word of God...

Matthew 19:12 speaks of "eunuchs from the womb." These are homosexual men born that way by nature. What the idiots in the Catholic Chuch have to do is figure out how Christ addresses "the eunuch from the womb." He makes no comment on them in the Matthew passage, although He has told us that our main purpose is to love one another as He has loved us. Of course,such a mandate from Him means little to an organization hell bent on acquisition of property and wealth, and continunace in ignorance of the Sacred Scriptures that the Paraclete demands of all be read for the sake of their salvation. Passages from Leviticus about man lying with a man refer to man lying with a boy waiting to receive the seed of the man in the same way the earth received seed for growth of food from the ground. It was a Canaanite cult that was being condemned in the passagae against man lying with boy-- no more, no less. I quite frankly find the Catholic Church position on this matter of same-sex behavior foolish and cruel, and do expect many will be judged harshly for their hatred towards gay people emanating from ignorance og Scripture, Divine creation, and human nature. While gay unions can never be called marriages, calling them condemned to hell does not address the Matthew 19:3 passage, which no one will address. By the way, to cap off this debate, notice the Old Testament not once mentions lesbianism. Why is it that, idiots? If you want a solid study on this issue read Robert Geis' "Same-Sex in Scripture" (it's on Amazon). My read is that Ratzinger does not have Geis' intellect and could never respond to what Geis has written on this subject.

It is you that is ignorant about Scripture, and are perverting it to suit your interests in direct contrast to the Tradition of the Jews and Catholic Church who gave you those very Scriptures you are now perverting.

In Matthew 19:12, Christ outright says that they are incapable of marriage. In other words they should not marry, and hence should not have sex, because sex outside of the sacrament of marriage is adultery and condemned. You are only reading into it that He is somehow infering that Homosexuals are 'born.' Well I could easily interpret Mat 19:12 to infer that homosexuals are in reference to those 'made so by others' if you want to play that game. What say you? Likewise the term 'eunuch' was broad which could mean those born with sexual deformities, possibly even referring to men of homosexual inclination, but also refers to celibate men. The common point being they do not marry or have sex.

The apostles, one of them being St. Paul also condemns homosexuality, and the Jews and the Catholic Church has understood the passage just fine unchanging right up to our modern era. It is you grasping at straws in your ignorance and immorality. If you take the Bible seriously and want to hold fast to what Scripture teaches, how about also submitting yourself to the Catholic Church's authority who alone can correctly interpret Stipture for you? Why don't you obey Christ's words to obey the religious authority despite any perceived hypocrisy on their part? That they have authority to instruct you descending form the chair of Moses (Mat 23: 1-3), just as the Catholics now teach descending from the chair of Peter?

As for your hilarious take on Leviticus, I take it then that you're okay that men have sex with animals too? After all it's just some Canaanite cult being condemned? But otherwise bestiality sex is okay? And your hilarious assertation that Leviticus makes no reference to 'lesbians' is also hilarious in light of the fact that I guess you must then agree that women can ignore other moral laws: They can be adulterous, because the Leviticus only refers to men sleeping with women, and you then must agree that it's okay to hate your sisters and only love your brothers too simply because it is framed only within male social terms given to a patriarchial society? You know? The sort that couldn't care less about political correctness that you living in your modern age with your fancy pants computer and internet thingies and McDonalds? It was known to them completely well that the laws applied to both men and women. They don't get confused like people today who need explicit hand holding instruction. Furthermore St. Paul in the New Testament does condemn lesbians as he then speaks in a time and society where women have more recognition, so there!

Now about that Mat 19:3 that you say hasn't been answered? I suppose you are inferring that Moses' 'law' on divorce must be wrong according to Christ, so maybe we ought to ignore the rest as well including those on homosexuality? Just wipe the slate clean of all the Old Testament laws? Hmmm?

The original 'law' is in Deuteronomy 24 and it's a protasis: a linguistic term forming the first part of an 'if/then' statement. Like If 'X' then 'Y' if you know your math or are a programer. If X:when the situation of such a thing occurs, then Y:this would be the 'law' to deal with it. Divorce is the protasis 'X'. The 'law' about granting a bill of divorce and not taking your wife back if she's remarried, is Y. The Old Testament Law of Moses doesn't state at all whether divorce is right or wrong. Divorce, like murder, was a reality of life that was unlawfully occuring. In other words, the 'divorce' portion was the wrongdoing. The law was what came afterwards to regulate it. It's like saying: the prison law for killing a man is life in jail. The law concerned, is giving murderers life in jail. It's not saying murder is okay. So Deut 24 isn't okaying divorce any more than murder. It presumes the reality of divorce much like presuming the reality that people murder each other and is going to happen.

Christ says Moses conceded on this due to their hardness of hearts by effectively giving a law that would TOLERATE the practice. This toleration in Moses' time was done for very good reasons, because unlike today where people sleep around like it's no big deal, people were deadly serious about lineage and tribal and familial rights and also the value of dowries for wives to survive in the harshness of the desert and Moses' time. Adulterous affairs and arguments over legitimacy and money and family pride could lead to bloodshed and fierce retaliation. Given that divorces and using women for convenience was a problem in Moses time, he set up the law to give some legal precedent for recognition that a woman was not wanted by one man and thus everyone knew where the lines of lineage and family and rights were drawn when and if she remarried so she would not be abused and family feuds would be limited.

For women, living in those times without a husband was terrible. There is no social welfare office or alimony cheques or opportunities for women to do harsh work required of strong men because they didn't have computers and filing and were constantly at war which required the brutality and bodily labor that men posessed and were better at, and nobody cared about being politically correct when food was scarse, enemies were everywhere and their very survival was on the line. So if a woman had to survive she needed to have a husband and she'd look after the affairs of the home and provide children! Thus such remarriage was allowed for the sake of women. Her previous husband could not change his mind and take her back afterwards out of any motive, even financial ones that resulted in laying claim to portions of her dowry from another marriage and other such complications that would lead to family fueds and blood to be shed. Moses' law is concerned with all of this and wanted to mitigate instances of adultery and other instances that would've resulted in death.

Furthermore when the Pharisee's asked Christ this question, they were not interested in the validity of divorce as God wished, they wanted to see Christ pick a side between two schools of thought about what is allowable for divorce. Between the schools of Hillel or Shammai one being more liberal, the other being more conservative, about what reasons made a divorce legitimate. Christ does not deny divorce altogether, He too admits to circumstanes where a marriage would be unlawful and circumstances could be presented. But ideally what God does join no one can separate, except of course if a marriage was unlawful to begin with and thus was always null. Hence why the Church teaches about grounds for annulment and separation but no remarriage. In Christ's time the problems presented to Moses time did not exist as severely, so there wasn't any grounds for tolerating divorce as much except where marriages were unlawful to begin with. Even the Pharaisees knew this which is why they debated over what constituted suitable grounds for divorce in their time and over the reason for its institution. Christ rejected the Hillel school which interpreted Moses' law to be a command, and sided more with the Shammai school which saw the law as being made for reasons of concession by Moses considering his circumstances.

All in all, divorce wasn't the law. Bills of divorce by Moses and prevention from remarrying if already remarried was the law in case of divorce by a bunch of hard hearted people. As the times changed Christ reemphasized the illegitimacy of divorce. And do not take this to mean that just because times are changing that we for some reason must also tolerate or accept homosexuality. Christ was calling to a return to the original intent of creation in Genesis, to a time before the toleration of several things in a fallen and sinful world under circumstances that God put up with. For example, war is an evil thing, but going to war when there's no alternative is not wrong. However, the idea is that we should end all wars, not say that war is a moral and virtuous thing. Likewise the idea is that given all the conveniences we have today, divorce is unacceptable. And homosexuality has never been acceptable since time began for it inherently divorces man from god's original creation and reduces him to the level of a beast with disordered carnal desires.

So now that you've been instructed, I recommend you to seek the proper intelligent Catholics like Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, who knows what he's talking about along with other Christians and Catholics who study the Bible and know what they're talking about, and you will discover why it is you who is ignorant of Scripture, history and sociology of the Ancient Near East, when you try and use it to justify the immorality of homosexuality.